On 24 Jun 2010 at 14:04, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Platt] > He said Platt's conclusion -- "The MOQ is the best S/O answer I've > found yet." -- undermines the MOQ, meaning by emphasizing the > necessary use of S/O language to convey the MOQ its "essence" may be > compromised, reducing its value. > > [Arlo] > You SOL-ists are too funny. He said nothing about the MOQ's essence > being compromised, or anything about "the necessary use of S/O > language to convey the MOQ". If that is what he MEANT, then that is > what he would have SAID. He did not.
[Platt] Obviously you haven't read Note 132. You might do a little checking before you sound off. > Platt: > So, I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the intellectual > level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to avoid > losing it and sinking back to "anything goes" irrationalism or a > "because God says so" mentality, we need to recognize its > vulnerability to attacks from academic philosophers, social > do-gooders, spiritual evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To > that end, the MOQ is the best S/O answer I've found yet. > > Pirsig: > I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is > obviously not Platt's intention. It is like saying that science is > really a form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has > the effect dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ > is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a > part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have > read that the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, > James, Peirce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these > people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of > comparison is what I have meant by the term, "philosophology." It is > done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but > only to classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything > new. God knows the MOQ has never had two better friends than Bo and > Platt, so this is no criticism of their otherwise brilliant thinking. > It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if > you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes. [Arlo] > The "conclusion" he is speaking about is clearly "that the SOM and > the intellectual level are one and the same". Nowhere in his reply do > I see anything about "necessary use of S/O language to convey the > MOQ" or anything about the MOQ's "essence" being compromised. [Platt] If that was the conclusion he is speaking about he would have said so. He did not. Anyway, conclusions don't come at the beginning of a statement. They come at the end. You ought to take English 101 at your own university. On second thought, don't bother. You won't learn much about quality expression and meanings, but a lot about multiculturialism. [Arlo] > I agree with Pirsig on this, following the path of Bo and Platt > lowers the quality of the MOQ. Pirsig got that one right. [Platt] I agree with Pirsig that "It was this intellectual level that was screwing everything up." He got that right. He only proposed one intellectual level, the one that has people " . . . living in some kind of movie projected by this intellectual, electromechanical machine that had been created for their happiness, saying: PARADISE "> PARADISE PARADISE > but which had inadvertently shut them out from direct experience of life itself-and from each other." (Lila, 22) That's SOM reality, not Quality reality that is MOQ's essence. If you can't see that, we've nothing to discuss. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
